The Case For (or Against) Scott Pruitt

By
Jerry Taylor

January 17, 2017

Is a climate skeptic qualified to run an environmental agency? Donald Trump’s nomination of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency puts that question front and center. The answer depends on what exactly Mr. Pruitt is skeptical about, where that skepticism comes from, and what—if anything—he would entertain as a hedge against climate risks.

At heart, most climate skepticism is driven by the fear that accepting mainstream narratives about the risks of climate change will invite crippling regulatory policies, central economic planning, punishing energy prices, unreliable electricity service, and de-industrialization. If you believe those things, you’re going to be highly motivated to convince yourself (and others) that the warming problem is overblown or doesn’t exist.

Conservative fears about climate action are not entirely unreasonable. Al Gore argued two decades ago in Earth in the Balance that addressing climate change would require “a bold effort to change the very foundation of our civilization.” Author Naomi Klein contended in This Changes Everything that, to save the planet from warming, capitalism as we know it and the entire neoliberal world order had to go.

While not all environmentalists traffic in such shock-and-awe narratives, conservatives can be excused for taking these ambitions seriously and responding with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Even so, arguing that nothing of consequence is going on is impossible. The planet is warmer now than at any time since the Eemian period 120,000 years ago, when sea levels eventually stabilized at 20 to 30 feet higher than today. While it may take centuries for such a disaster to play out again, we can clearly see it beginning now.

Republicans are perfectly positioned to offer what most economists believe to be the ideal policy response: a federal, economy-wide carbon tax that would replace the expensive web of energy regulation and subsidies that are now in place. Ensuring that the cost of fossil fuels includes the risks associated with warming makes the market work better and more efficiently. And leaving it to consumers to decide when, where, and how to use fossil fuels is infinitely preferable to harnessing regulation, subsidies, and production orders to do the same.

With Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress, conservatives no longer need to fear that acknowledging climate change will usher in a parade of policy horribles. They now control the parameters of the debate, which provides them a tremendous opportunity to address one of the greatest threats mankind faces over the next century in an economically responsible manner. Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation should ride on whether he’s interested in that project or not.